Goose management and rearing in late medieval eastern England, c.1250–1400* by Philip Slavin Abstract: The present article discusses goose farming on late medieval English demesnes. The research is based on over 2,700 manorial (demesne) accounts from several eastern counties, including Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and parts of the Peterborough hinterland. The paper discusses various strategies employed by lords and their reeves, chronological dynamics and geographic differences in rearing, disposal and consumption patterns. Finally, the place of the goose in the livestock trade is discussed. These aspects are linked to larger economic and ecological processes within the shifting environment of late medieval England. Although pre-industrial diets in England were dominated by grain products in the form of bread, pottage and ale, ‘complementary’ foodstuffs, consisting of dairy products, fish and meat, and including poultry, played a significant role in consumption. Poultry husbandry in general, and goose farming in particular, have attracted little scholarly attention.1 The present study * I wish to thank Bruce M. S. Campbell of Queen’s University, Belfast and Tim Newfield of McGill University, Montreal, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their most helpful suggestions. All errors remain mine. 1 M. Stephenson, ‘The role of poultry husbandry in the medieval agrarian economy, 1200–1450’, Veterinary Hist. 10 (1977–8), pp. 17–24; id. ‘The role of poultry husbandry in the medieval agrarian economy, 1200–1450’, Ark 14 (1987), pp. 378–81; J. Witteveen, ‘On swans, cranes and herons, I, swans’, Petits Propos Culinaires (hereafter PPC) 24 (1986), pp. 22–31; id. ‘On swans, cranes and herons, II, cranes’, PPC 25 (1987), pp. 50–9; id., ‘On swans, cranes and her- ons, III, herons’, PPC 26 (1987), pp. 65–73; id., ‘The great birds, IV, peacocks in history’, PPC 32 (1989), pp. 23–34; id., ‘The great birds: V, preparation of the peacock for the table’, PPC 36 (1990), pp. 10–20; A. MacGregor, ‘Swan rolls and beak markings: husbandry exploitation and regulation of Cygnus Olor in England, c.1100–1900’, Anthropozoologica 22 (1996), pp. 39–69; C. M. Woolgar, The great household in late medieval England (1999), pp. 111–65; P. Freedman, ‘Images of the medieval pheasant’, unpublished paper delivered at conference on ‘The chicken: its biological, social, cultural, and industrial history’, New Haven (2002) (I am grateful to Prof. Freedman for letting me read this un- published paper); E. Schubert, Essen und Trinken im Mittelalter (2006), pp. 120–5; C. E. Jackson, Peacock (2006). For archaeological studies, consult U. Albarella and S. Davis, ‘Mammals and birds from Launceston Castle, Cornwall: decline in status and rise in agriculture’, Circaea 12 (1996), pp. 1–156; id., ‘They dined on crane: bird consumption, wildfowling and status in medieval England’, Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 45 (2002), pp. 23–38; J. Pine et al., ‘The excavation of medieval and post-medieval features at the rear of 42c Bell Street, Henley, Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 64 (1999), pp. 255–74; I. Barnes and J. P. W. Young, ‘DNA-based identification of goose species from two archaeological sites in Lincolnshire’, J. Archaeological Science 27 (2000), pp. 91–100; D. Serjeantson, ‘Goose husbandry in medieval England and the problem of ageing goose bones’, Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 45 (2002), pp. 39–54; N. Sykes, ‘The dynamics of status symbols: wildfowl exploitation in England, AD 410–1550’, Archaeological J. 161 (2004), pp. 82–105. AgHR 58, I, pp.1–29 1 2 agricultural history review figure 1. Map of demesnes represented in the study. aims to fill the gap in the literature by outlining the place, extent and economic implications of demesne goose rearing within a wider context of the expansion and decline of direct demesne management in late medieval England. Eastern England, and chiefly Norfolk, practised one of the most intensive agricultural regimes in late medieval England. In contrast to the pasture-dependant west and north, the mixed husbandry of the east was biased towards spring grains, allocating a large proportion of its arable to barley or dredge.2 Advanced agricultural techniques, effective institutional arrangements and sensitive decision making by manorial reeves made eastern England more productive than any other region in England.3 Furthermore, despite the strong reliance on Note 1 continued pp. 209–30; M. Bailey, Medieval Suffolk: an economic and For poultry archaeology on Romano-British sites, see social history, 1200–1500 (2007), pp. 79–86. S. Appelbaum, ‘Agriculture in Roman Britain,’ AgHR 6 3 B. M. S. Campbell, ‘Agricultural progress in med- (1958), p.75 and id., ‘Animal husbandry’, in J. Wacher ieval England: some evidence from eastern Norfolk’, (ed.), The Roman world (2 vols, 1987), II, pp. 504–26. EcHR 36 (1983), pp. 26–46; id., ‘Arable productivity in 2 B. M. S. Campbell, English seigniorial agriculture, medieval England: some evidence from Norfolk’, JEcH 1250–1450 (2000), pp. 172–83; B. M. S. Campbell and 43 (1983), pp. 379–404; M. Bailey, A marginal economy? K. Bartley, England on the eve of the Black Death: an East Anglian Breckland in the later middle ages (1989), atlas of lay lordship, land and wealth, 1300–49 (2006), pp. 85–96. goose management in late medieval england 3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -7 -8 -9 300 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 400 51 61 71 81 -1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 -1 12 12 12 12 91 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 91 12 13 figure 2. Number of demesnes represented in each decade, 1251–1400. arable, livestock husbandry played an important role in the demesne agriculture of eastern England. One example is dairy-based production, which attained a high degree of commer- cialization before the last quarter of the fourteenth century.4 This study is based on over 2,700 manorial accounts from about 250 demesnes drawn from eastern England, covering Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, as well as Peterborough’s hinterland (Figure 1).5 This region was chosen because of the availability of comparatively long and comprehensive series of accounts, drawn especially from large houses, such as Norwich Cathedral Priory, Westminster Abbey, Peterborough Abbey and Ramsey Abbey. About 65 per cent of these demesnes were held by ecclesiastical magnates, the remainder by lay lords. The chronological distribution of the demesnes is uneven, too (Figure 2). For instance, only 12 demesnes are represented in the 1250s, while the first decade of the fourteenth century has an impressive figure of 90 demesnes. The manorial documents provide a unique glimpse into the arable farming and livestock husbandry of late medieval England. Rendered on an annual basis (mostly at Michaelmas) by manorial officials (bailiffs or reeves), these accounts record, in considerable detail, annual patterns of poultry disposal, including issue, mating, egg yields, purchase, sales, consumption, transfer and death. The rolls carefully distinguish between species, sexes and ages, presenting an excellent opportunity for the reconstruction of demographic patterns. 4 B. M. S. Campbell, ‘Commercial dairy production Northamptonshire Record Office, Northampton; and on medieval English demesnes: the case of Norfolk’, the University of Chicago Library, Chicago. The Norfolk Anthropozoologica 16 (1992), pp. 107–18 accounts are catalogued in Campbell, English seignio- 5 The accounts used in the database are deposited in rial agriculture, App. 2. References to the Peterborough various repositories, including The National Archives, accounts can be found in Janet Martin, The court and Kew; the British Library, London; Norfolk Record Office, account rolls of Peterborough Abbey: a handlist (1980), Norwich; Cambridge University Library, Cambridge; pp. 31–42. 4 agricultural history review I The domestication of the goose gained ground with the advent of the Romans in the first century CE.6 As archaeological findings suggest, this was a British variety of greylag goose (Anser anser), known as the cheneros, which is mentioned in the Natural history of Pliny the Elder.7 Geese seem to have become especially numerous and specialized in the Saxon period and a number of Anglo-Saxon and Latin sources mention goose husbandry.8 It was not until the introduction of manorial accounts during the thirteenth century, however, that the extent and nature of goose husbandry becomes quantifiable. Like dairy cattle, poultry were reared mostly for commercial purposes. To a large degree, poultry rearing was an adjunct to wider commercial contexts and decisions. In John Lydgate’s poem The debate of the horse, goose and sheep, the goose argued for its importance and supremacy among the domestic animals.9 Geese were prized both for the flavour of their meat and their feathers, which were used for quill pens and arrows. They were also used as watchdogs to keep thieves away. Furthermore, the geese kept slugs and snails down. This was especially helpful in rainy seasons, when gastropods become active and was probably an issue during the continuous downpour of 1314–16. The costs of keeping geese were somewhat higher than those of other poultry. First, unlike chickens, geese mate for life and it is impossible to pair one gander to more than four geese. By comparison, a cock can service as many as 20 hens. Second, geese are notorious destroyers of crops because they tend to feed on seeds and grass. This is illustrated in some literary sources. For instance, there is a reference to the devastation of the arable fields of Weedon (Northamptonshire) by wild geese in the Life of St Werburgh, composed by Goscelin of Canterbury at the end of the eleventh century.10 Also, in contrast with hen manure, goose dung – because of its wetness and content – tends to pollute the soil, damaging the fertility of arable fields.11 Third, geese compete with other animals for pasture.